Beingness Processing and the Basic Fundamentals of Existence (4ACC 540315)
Series: 4th Advanced Clinical Course (4ACC)
Date: 15 March 1954
Speaker: L. Ron Hubbard
Okay. This is the second hour of lecture on March the 15th, 1954.
Want to talk to you here about some Beingness Processing. Want to talk about the basic fundamentals of existence, phrased in the terms and understood in the relationship to Beingness Processing. This is a good way to do it.
Let's take a process with which we've had a week to get more or less familiar—I hope not less. And let's then turn around and evaluate existence against a process of which we've some knowledge, now, of its workability.
If we have a process—you'd say, well, there'd have to be a theory to explain it. This would be normal, to find something that worked, you see, and then develop a theory that explained this—be pretty easy, even.
It didn't work this way because none of Scientology has been developed according to the rules of logic and so forth. It actually started in with the Theta-MEST Theory of 1950.
Theta-MEST Theory is as follows: that Life is—as we understand it in an organism form—is a composite result of a nothingness impinging upon a somethingness. That somethingness is something of all-motion, which would be considered to be the MEST universe. So we've got an all-motion thing, haven't we? That's in theory. And then we take a no-motion thing and we put the two together.
Well now, that was the Theta—MEST Theory. As a point of departure it was a very good point of departure. Things started to happen immediately and it kept predicting new data which when looked for was found to exist.
All right. What's theta? Theta is a static. The field of physics has defined a static as something that is in an equilibrium of forces. It's a wonderful definition, since it cannot be found in the physical universe. There is nothing in an equilibrium of forces in the MEST universe. Not one single atom anywhere in the universe is for any instant in an equilibrium of forces. Fascinating, isn't it?
Take an automobile. We apply the brakes and bring the automobile to a stop. At the moment she is at a state of rest we say, "Well, she's in an equilibrium of forces." Oh yeah? No it isn't.
That automobile, regardless of its own motion, is traveling in at least eight directions just as a consequence of being part of a solar system. Where is this equilibrium of forces? We say the solar system is in an equilibrium of forces because it's not unbalancing. Oh, no it's not.
One of these fine days this particular system is going to be in conjunction with the constellation Lyra. Lyra is approaching this solar system at the rate of twelve and one-half miles a second, which is quite some speed. Going to take a long time for it to get here, but this demonstrates that there isn't such a thing as an equilibrium of forces occurring in this solar system, because those things which are going toward it, which influence it with stellar gravity and so forth, are not in an equilibrium.
So the physicist has started with the unreasonable assumption that a static was something in this theoretical bracket, something in an equilibrium of forces. Yet he had put his hands on something tremendously vital. And then because he was somebody who fooled around with matter exclusively, he then paid no further attention to it.
Let's take a static and find out what would have to be a condition which could be called an absolute static. And we would find out that it would have to have no wavelength, no geographical location, no position in time (past, present or future), no mass, no motion. That would have to be a static.
Well, the funny part of it is that the only thing which answers this definition of a static happens to be Life—as its theta component. That is a static. It has no actual position, but it can be anywhere. It has no actual mass, but it can assume itself to have mass.
In other words, we have a static and the second that we give it potentialities of creating and placing in space and time—creating energy to place it in space and time—we get a dynamic. See, the second that we put its potentiality into action we have a dynamic. But until its potentiality goes into action we have an absolute static.
And so we have the definition of a thetan. Why can the thetan appear here and appear there and have a perfect viewpoint here and there, and what is this thing called "certain he is someplace"? Well, that's merely a certainty of being able to place himself somewhere. How simple this is. This doesn't lower the fact that he is there. He certainly is there, but he really is there because he says so. But his saying so really makes him there.
Now, you've got to have a person in a pretty good condition so that his "saying so can make him there" will take effect, for him to be a good Clear.
What's the definition of a Theta Clear then? It's a person who can, at will, assume the conditions and potentialities of a static and execute them. It is a person, then, who can place himself in space or time or consider himself to be—to create or to be—any object, and place it in space and time. And that of course would be your total explanation as we go.
What is this study, then, on which we're embarked? It is the study of this static. Well, we'd have to go over into the field of mathematics and do something. We've done something in physics: In the Encyclopaedia Britannica of the, I think, ninth edition is the first time it appeared if I remember rightly—we have a statement there, "space and time." And in there it says, "Space and time are actually problems of psychology. They are not problems of physics. And until the psychologist has defined space and time we will then have no real understanding of these or the subject of physics." So if everybody was depending upon the psychologist, the psychologist didn't know this. But somebody back about 1880 or 1885 wrote an article which was very sooth on this subject. It still was kicking along in the Encyclopaedia Britannica at least a couple of editions ago. Been grossly overlooked.
Well inadvertently, with no knowledge of that article whatsoever, we did accumulate just this definition. And the better this definition was, why, the more workable things became. And you should have a very clear understanding, then, of this definition as a starter point. What's space? Time?
Well, we had to go earlier than that—which is to say, we had to have a cleaner definition than space and time. We had to have some sort of an understanding of a static. Here in the field of physics and in the field of the mind and in every other field there was a missing definition. And that definition was the definition for static.
The definition of a static is without geographical location. See, I mean if—just because something can be here is no reason it is here. It's without a geographical location, it has no position in time (past, present or future), it has no mass, it has no wavelength—and this would be, then, an absolute static. So we've got that definition.
Now, we go over into the field of mathematics. Was something wrong with mathematics that this thing wouldn't resolve? Yes sir, there sure was something wrong with mathematics. Mathematics depends entirely and completely upon that association problem known as logic. It depends upon a gradient scale of association in order to work. And it has the impertinence to claim that two things are equal when they are in different spaces—that they are the same thing.
In other words mathematics goes on a gradient scale of similarities in order to achieve an impossible identity: an identification. Well, this is mathematics and mathematics is nothing you bow down to or actually look to for any great deal of solution, because mathematics was operating with an enormously wild variable.
How would you like to have a mathematical problem in algebra, whereas you had—let's say you had this thing called "Q"? And this Q—the one time you did the problem you got this answer and the next time you did it you got another answer. Well, that would be real remarkable.
Let's say that Q in the first problem—you said Q was a constant and Q turned out to be anything ranging from one to one million as it believed or determined. It just could do this. You think you could do very much mathematics this way or mathematics would work out?
No, again mathematics had to start with an unreasonable assumption before you could have mathematics. And that unreasonable assumption was this: that they could put down a symbol called "zero" with no further qualification. They could write a zero down and no further qualification on this zero. All right.
This was a difficult thing which any algebra professor knows about, by the way, but a difficult thing that mathematics has been fighting with—is a variable in all of its equations, and that variable is zero.
Because an actual zero would have no place in space, it would have no place in time (past, present or future). It would have no mass and it would have no wavelength. Otherwise it would be a relative or a variable zero. So an algebra professor can stand up on the board and by using this wild variable he can prove that one equals two any day of the week, simply by dividing by zero. He can multiply by zero and get something else. Any time he can introduce, covertly and not quite observed, a zero into an equation, the equation goes by the boards promptly and immediately.
We start to divide by zero or multiply by zero. Well, that's very interesting, because there must be a zero before and after either side of the equal sign. One plus one equals two. That's real good. So one plus one, then, divided by two equals one. This is just plain algebra or arithmetic. We just transposed that two—brought it in under—equals one.
Well, then, one plus one over two equals one plus zero. You should be at liberty to add zero at any time, couldn't you? And yet the second we put the zero in there the equation will go by the boards. And yet it must be understood to be there.
The fellow said just one plus one, so therefore why couldn't he say one plus one plus zero equals two? Oohhh, why this would be—oh, no. So mathematics, then, horrible as it would be to the nuclear physicist and the teacher of arithmetic alike—mathematics don't happen to be true. They are not true.
They are on the unreasonable assumption that zero is a constant. And zero is a wild variable. It could be anything. Why?
Because they say a zero of apples. They would have to say a zero of apples When it was a zero of apples. See? And it'd always have to be a qualified zero, which wouldn't make zero at all. And yet these fellows keep slapping this zero in, with no understanding of the definition of zero. You will go to a mathematics text and look in vain for a definition of zero. We had to have a definition of zero before we could advance along the line and exceed logic, in order to get answers to the problem of the mind.
And this was what was done and this is actually, then, a declaration really of this fact: If theta by definition exceeds the definition of static and if this definition of zero exceeds mathematics, then it must be that logic could not lead you to the ultimate solution of the problem of the mind. Now, you might not follow that directly, but it's true if we have proven or if we assume—and it has scouted out a lot of data for us—that life is a static and it seems that we can prove this fairly easily.
A static has no position in mathematics, because it's a wild variable. Mathematics cannot handle a zero. Can't handle a zero. Therefore the application of logic to the problems of the human mind could not but result in failure. For all scientific operation concerning the human mind and all deduction concerning the human mind would eventually arrive at nothing. More sensibly, it'd eventually arrive at just a complete scramble.
Anybody who tries to address the problem of the human mind by logical equations can only produce a neurotic product. And so he must then assume that neurosis must be the source of everything. Because all logic leads him to is to neurosis. So naturally, if logic doesn't work he's done.
Well, in a society such as today, logic is worshiped. Mathematics is worshiped. The operations and juggling of symbols is worshiped. People are led to believe continually and constantly that if they cannot think in terms of symbols they are dead. They are just gone.
"You mean to say that you can't get enough words down to put down your thoughts of what you know?" That would merely mean if the guy just didn't have a large number of words, it wouldn't mean that he didn't know. And yet people have gone over that unreasonable assumption to assume that if a person couldn't express himself completely, then he didn't know. In other words, "come down to our frame of reference and get stupid and then you'll explain everything."
The end product, then, of this type of scientific research would be social and economic chaos. The second that you insisted that logic would lead to the solution of social and economic problems you would of course wind them up in a chaotic state. You couldn't do anything else because you would be operating on the basis of a mathematical-type reasoning which will not tolerate zero. Mathematical reasoning obviously can't tolerate zero.
Any mathematician hearing that would look at you, start to sneer, say, "Well, this sounds like an awfully wild sort of a theory and who thought that up?" Well, if one does, by the way, you tell them a fellow that has gone through differentials and theory of equations thought it up. He's liable to back down in the face of authority, but it's very doubtful if you will get him to hear it. It's very doubtful if you could communicate the datum to him.
You might be able to sit on his chest and hold him still long enough to explain to him and get him to see that zero is a wild variable and that when you are trying to solve any static condition in terms of numbers, none of which are static, no static condition will result. You will not get any solution, you will eventually wind up in chaos. It's doubtful though that you could put this thought across to a well-seasoned mathematician because he's totally sold on the fact that the way to get to the answer is to figure it out.
I'll state it in much more simple terms. "The way to get there is to figure." And the more these boys figure, the less they look. It is traditional in universities that in the research departments (particularly of those of mathematics and physics, electronics) that the poor old professor who's got the Nobel prize is hanging there at the end of every student bench with his ears grown six feet wide and flapping like an elephant's in the hope that he'll hear something he can then figure on and use. That's a horrible statement, isn't it? That's kind of libelous. Yet I've merely said if you went around universities you would find that these people have this reputation—that they depend upon the young fresh student to get the inspiration which they can then figure out and apply. In other words, which they can then lend the weight of their name to and push.
There's nothing wrong with this, you understand. This can be just life evolving. But the only thing wrong about it could be—let's not be blind utterly and entirely as to the source of knowingness. Now, you see where I'm going with all this wandering dissertation?
Knowingness is not arrived at by equating. It is not arrived at by logic. Many people have names for it and the names are as empty as can be. They say "inspiration." And then they just torture some poor young writer into getting himself to worrying about whether or not he is or is not inspired. "Is this really an inspiration?" "What condition do you have to be in to get inspired?"
He'll eventually conclude like Dash Hammett did that you have to be super dead-drunk in order to get real inspired, and he didn't have to at all.
What is this thing? Well, let's all get very, very, very thoughtful about it and let's figure about it a lot and let's apply an awful lot of words to it. But let's put it this way and walk around it, and by leaving a hole, leave it explained: It is something which you can experience. It is a state of knowingness which you can experience, and if moved in fairly rapidly up to enough synonyms for knowingness, so that state can be described for a communication basis too. One of them is certainty. A person gets a feeling of certainty when he really knows something. It's a feeling he experiences. And he experiences this, it's like looking at gold. When you look at some gold dust in a pan, the first time you've ever done this, you will look at that gold dust and you will never afterwards make the slightest mistake as to what is gold dust. Never afterwards make the mistake.
But before you saw any gold dust, pieces of bright sand, iron pyrites, all sorts of various operations of various kinds could be considered gold dust. Anything could have been considered gold dust. A fellow could have poured a lot of brass filings out into your hands and you would have accepted them as gold dust.
But then you saw a piece of gold dust and now you know gold dust. Well, that's certainty. Analogous experience. We're doing all right with this type of explanation because we can experience—because you can experience it, you see? All right.
Now, that's one approach to it. That is to say... you can experience this certainty. Now, there's another approach, you've got other channels of experience on this sort of thing. You have beingness. You know whether you can be something or not. Well, that ties right in with knowingness. So here's another method of expressing the experiencing of it. So we've got another route to experience something by it.
So we have a couple of routes there. Now let's combine them. Certainty of beingness. And of course this makes a very explosive sort of a process. You certainly learn the gold dust real quick. It's with great surprise that some preclear, who hasn't been anything for years and years and years, all of a sudden runs this process and finds himself staring at this bright speck of gold. That is to say, he is being something. He is experiencing an experience. He knows he if this thing. He's been going along maybe for a half an hour of processing and is saying, "Well, yeah, I can be a body, I can be a this, I can be a that" and so forth, you know.
All of a sudden—all of a sudden he's a horse. Boy, can he be a horse. Now, we had somebody here in the 3rd Unit that was very, very entertained. In class one day I was running this as a part of a Group Process and she suddenly discovered that she could be a little brown dog. And she sat there and the smoke came off the case. The amount of relief which flew in all directions—this explained everything to her, she had hit the center of the thinking machine, you see. And she had this feeling of complete ability to be something, which blew it. But yet she knew what that was and how to experience that.
All right, she could be this dog with great certainty, and that was why she liked chicken bones and that was why people had to like her. And all of her computations just swung right into that one point of beingness. Happiest pc you ever wanted to see in your life. She had discovered a bit of gold dust existed after all.
And her case, which had been fairly stumbling before that time and very rocky and she felt real bad about it, all of a sudden came on an up curve and took a steep climb and she was just getting better, better and better and better and better.
Well, we are very rich in knowing the behavior of this unit called Life and knowing what it is up against.
Now, its definition is a very finite definition. It is a static with potentialities which it can put into action. Although it isn't located anyplace in space and time, it can be, merely by saying that it is. There isn't any doubt about its being located there either. This is a big feeling of experience too. A fellow says, "Well, I don't know whether I'm out or not but I have a kind of a feeling, I... " skip it. He doesn't know whether he's out or not. He probably isn't. Fellow says, "Well, I'm out, I know I'm out." Yes sir, well he's out. That's that. He's here or he's there. It's where he says he is that he is.
Well, as we go along the line and look this over as a problem, we find out that as far as you can go, the manufacture of energy or the making of postulates by—which is again the manufacture of energy—pardon me, the manufacture of energy and the making of postulates, you just don't have to divide that up at all because a fellow has to make a postulate when he manufactures energy, see. So we've got postulates as the kingpin and we find out what this person can do: he can change his mind.
What essentially can you do with a preclear? You can make him change his mind. Well, there's lots of ways to make him change his mind. You can always make a preclear change his mind downhill. You can always make him change his mind downhill if you do not have the power to make him change his mind through experiencing new certainties. So therefore psychotherapy was dead-ended. It could only go downhill. If you couldn't give a fellow new certainties he wouldn't get anyplace.
Finally he finds out what certainty is and then finally he eventually decides to change his mind and be totally certain. He gradually lets go, little by little, of postulates by which he has reserved his activities in the past.
Well, in order to get him up to a point of where all he has to do is change his mind, bing, you can give him exercises in changing his mind which demonstrate to him that he doesn't suddenly blow up just because he changed his mind. 8-C leads into this quite rapidly. Or you can simply make him start being things.
Whoa! "Be things." This means he'd be able to communicate with anything with no liability after a while. And if he could then communicate with everything, there wouldn't be things he was trying to shut off or lines he was trying to close. And in view of the fact there weren't things he was trying to shut off and lines he was trying to close, he would of course then be able to communicate with anything. If he could communicate with anything he could certainly, then, make mock-ups of various kinds that would do all sorts of remarkable things. This would follow as a result. His communication level would come up, he would know, then, what was around him, he would no longer be afraid that something would suddenly pop in view, because he would realize that if something did pop in view—so what?
I had a fellow one time who had a hallucination machine and we just kept ignoring this hallucination machine. We didn't do anything about it at all. It went to sleep and went out of restim and there wasn't anything to it for a long time. In the meantime he got quite a bit of other processing and his certainty came up, up, up on this and that and so forth. And then one day—one day this doggone hallucination machine turned on by accident. He saw a movie which had a psychotic heroine or something—you know, a standard modern-time movie—and this restimmed him and it threw this machine into action. And he started to use the machine for what it was set up to do in the first place, which was amusing. And the next session I saw—as we started to run it, he was perfectly willing to sit there and watch this machine grind out all sorts of weird absurdities. It was a hallucination machine.
But when I first got my hands on this case he was so terrified of the pictures and things which would suddenly appear. He couldn't understand them, they were mysterious and so forth. They were the same pictures. You could say he knew more or you could say he was willing to know more. He got better to the degree that he was willing to know more. He was perfectly able to know that he had a machine making hallucinatory pictures in front of him. But it didn't mean he was willing to, because he didn't know any way to let go of anything long enough to look over the machine and he didn't dare take his attention off so many things that are liable to bite him. He didn't have any attention left for the machine. He couldn't make up his mind about anything. He didn't know where he was going or what was going to happen to him. The future was a great uncertainty. Uh, here he goes. And he just didn't know which way to look next and at the same time couldn't take his attention off of anything. Now, that's a real state of mind to be in.
And in that state of mind, of course, any sudden appearance or automaticity, such as a hallucination machine, would worry him. But after he was swamped up for a little bit and he wasn't being hit from all sides at once—he wasn't convinced any longer that he could be hit from all sides at once, he wasn't so convinced that he was this weakling he had thought he was, and so destructible. This hallucination machine could run in full bright, three-dimensional color and present him dragons and doors coming off and horrible creepy things rushing along the sides of corridors and rats coming out of the walls and everything. And it was very funny—just very, very funny. And he was a little disappointed. I said, well, blow up the machine and he did. Saw him the next day and he'd made another one.
Well, if we try to understand this business of living—just understand it—we wind up at the bottom of the scale. If you go around picking up all the data you can pick up so that you will understand, you're of course just going down the logic trail. The trail of the lonesome logic. Because it winds up at the "only one."
Why shouldn't you, though, process fellows so their logic will be better? Hm? Why shouldn't we really sharpen everybody up by sharpening up their logic, by giving them logical exercises to do? This would make them much more intelligent, obviously. Obvious this would result in a greater intelligence. Only it doesn't. And everybody has known for a long time that training never resulted in greater intelligence. Observation will result in a greater intelligence, but not just training, just per se.
Well, your problem as an auditor is to pull this preclear out of the horribly dark alleyways where he's got himself parked in the full belief and conviction that he must stay there and be rushed at and he must resist everything that rushes at him—not by the process of telling him there are no alleyways. This is real dull of anybody to tell a preclear who is in bad shape, "Well, there's nothing's going to hurt you. That mock-up won't bite you." He knows different. He knows it bites. He knows those eight-feet teeth on those dogs are twelve feet long.
And you come along and pat him on the shoulder and say, "Well, God bless you my brother. These hallucinations, these odd fears that you have, thinking that when you get to be seventy-five you will lose your job or this fear you have there that the United States Government won't pay your social security (because everybody knows that a dollar will be able to buy at least half of a loaf of bread by the time you draw down your $2.00 per month social security)—these worries and so forth that you have are obviously insane, so they shouldn't worry you. And you needn't worry too much about going off of your noggin, because the state normally takes care of psychotics and so forth, anyway. And so cheer up old man and just don't pay any attention to those things." This is psychotherapy? Yeah, with a spade in the face.
No. The direction also wouldn't be this: "Well now, why don't you think out your problems. Now, why don't you just think this over and come to some conclusion... uh . regarding this and just think this through." Rrrr.
No, the route out would lie in the field of communication, duplication and beingness, certainty and knowingness. Right up that field. Right up that track. And there is your road out.
What's the definition of commnnication?
Communication is a Distance-between-Cause-and-Effect. That all ought to be hyphenated, the end of it there—the communication is a Distance-between-Cause-and-Effect. Cause and Effect are also part of communication. C to E. It's causing an effect at a distance—always at a distance. Communication goes out when the distance goes out. The distance has to be postulated.
When you get into this sort of a circumstance in this universe, you'll find out that a perfect communication is when E exactly duplicates what was at C. That's a perfect communication.
As long as a person is willing to duplicate those things which face him, he doesn't have to duplicate them and doesn't have to worry about it. But the moment he obsessively begins to resist the duplication of those things which worry him, he will wind up eventually in a state of compulsive duplication of those things which face him. The reductio ad absurdum of this is an hypnotized person. He's compulsively getting at the receipt-point, effect, whatever is put into the line at the cause-point, C. All right.
So communication, C to E—we've got to have a duplication in order to have a communication. Well, doggone it, if a thetan can't be something, he means in effect he can't duplicate it, can he? C to E, duplicate it.
Well, when you look at this picture of communication it gives us the highest common denominator of index of a case, as we can see the case expressing itself to us as an auditor.
If we're dealing with a communication, let's deal with the greatest simplicities of communication and let's find out what happens to communication. We find out that communication goes from instantaneousness when it's in excellent condition, down to damn bad.
Now, even though there's a distance between C to E—does not and never will mean that it requires time for the communication particle or impulse to go from C to E, because a thetan doesn't make anything go from C to E across that space. He makes the communication materialize at E. Let's get that real well.
A bullet fulfills all the requirements of a communication in this universe. Time of passage—it's a particle which goes from C to E. And we get into significances, we go how far back to find out what fired the bullet. And let's just examine the bullet in flight and we find out that it has a lag, a time lag. It takes a time to get there.
Well now, a thetan differs in that he can commit the crime of communication. And don't think in this universe that it is not a crime—it is. The only punishment is for communicating. That's why people communicate less and less.
The thetan can cause to come about an instantaneous appearance at E of what he puts in at C. He can be at C and cause an instantaneous appearance at E. In other words, he can grant beingness. The granting of beingness does not require time. Or he can ungrant beingness or any gradient scale between those two things. And if he does either one of these two scales, he can do it instantaneously.
It does not, then, require time to communicate. Communication, even though it is across a distance, even though it is done in this universe, can be an instantaneous thing. Well, it slags away from an instantaneous thing, gets fuller and fuller of cinders and pitch and stuff and junk and it gets more and more stops on it and more and more little reservations and "I don't knows" and C—E lines (which are just inner C—E lines compounding). Get to a point of where the individual is putting all of his communications over a line and it'll get slower and slower and slower and slower and slower and slower and slower and slower. And finally you get down to, oh, a banker.
About in the business world, those people that are accepted as sane and so forth who have the closest to a psychotic reaction on communication: "Well uh . . yes . um... I suppose you could say conditions. Well, on the other hand... uh..." This is not communication. Not as we understand it, because it goes over an enormous number of C—E lines and he's putting communication over these lines just to think. So the number of lines involved that he's using to communicate straight to you are in proportion to the length of time it takes him to get the communication to you (think of something, form it in words and to get it in your ears). This is in essence a communication lag. There's always a lag when a person is using the distance to put a particle over.
Well now, there is an optimum method of communication, which, however, to people who do not understand it, would be terribly shocking. And that would be an instantaneous communication system whereby, instead of talking to you in words, I simply flip the thoughts into your head. See, instantaneously—no thought travels across space. It'd just suddenly appear in your head. Well, that would be great, that would be the obvious and optimum way to do it. It'd be the way to do it because then you could have this ridge that you wouldn't know about which was a mysterious influence, which you could think was yourself but you wouldn't know whether or not you had thought of it or created it, and you'd wind up in a fine state of knowingness, you would. It's only when you were well upscale and doing very well that this could be done.
And then such communication is done without consent, so we get politeness. We get other things as part of communication systems. Somebody consents to listen to you. They have consented to listen to you. This irritates them, when you haven't consented to listen and yet they're talking at you. Well, just go out on the street and just tap somebody on the shoulder and say, "It's beautiful weather," "Are you married?" or something. Say anything to him, just some stranger on the street, and you will see he's pretty alert. We haven't followed communication routine.
Routine is, in Europe, why, they're introduced to each other and they live side by side for thirty or forty years and they finally decide that they can talk fairly freely about it, you know, to the point of tipping their hats and saying good morning.
Over here it consists of having been in the gas station at the same time the other guy was getting his car filled. That's a perfect introduction, you've known him for forty years and he recommends you as a very good financial risk. A little difference.
Now, that difference is not necessarily—the slow communication lag and politeness aren't necessarily aberrative. You can follow any kind of a form you want to, any kind of a form you want to, as long as you aren't compulsively the effect of that form. If you're not compulsively duplicating the form, you can follow any form you want to.
If you're being polite because you have been beaten into being polite, then politeness is bad—for you. But if you're being polite just because you want to be polite and because you're perfectly willing to duplicate a communication system of politeness no matter how involved it is...
For instance, I get a big kick out of talking—used to, probably couldn't do it anymore to amount to anything till I dug up a few facsimiles and habit patterns and so forth—just delighted in talking to the Japanese. I used to outdo them. I spent a lot of time preparing for a social call. I'd wonder how many "magnificences" and "majesties" and so forth I could throw into a bunch of phrases. And I'd go back into old samurai forms which are just rowr-rmpr-rowr, you know. And instead of saying, "insignificant me wishes honorable and the respected you good morning," something like that, why, you would say "insignificant, despised and degraded-self honors the Sun which rises in the sky and blazes with glory over the entire city so as to blind the eyes of the young girls." These guys would look at you for a moment and say, "Gee, this fellow is real polite."
This didn't slow my comm lag—didn't give me a compulsive comm lag, in other words, to imitate a Japanese set of politenesses. No reason why it should.
I was perfectly willing to be polite or be impolite. The funny part of it was, I could often be very impolite. And again, not because I had to be or because I was rushed for time, but just because at that time it happened that the play ran better in order to be impolite, see. I mean, you wanted to be impolite so you were impolite. No explanation—there didn't have to be. You just wanted to play this scene out with more aesthetic or grace or something of the sort, so you were impolite.
You can be staggeringly impolite in Japanese, too. You just omit lots of phrases. You say, "Good morning, how are you?" Hmph! That's almost hara-kiri at dawn.
Well anyway, we have in all problems of communication the problem of form and system. Where that form and system is compulsory, where it has been forced off on somebody without his consent, we have it as aberrative. And where an individual is simply duplicating of his own free will it's not aberrative.
Now, you will learn a language as easily as you can duplicate. You will have children and enjoy sex as easily as you can duplicate. You will be able to go to church and have a good time listening to the organ as well as you can duplicate God and the organ. You will be able to fit into a group as well as you can duplicate the entire group. You will be able to know and love or hate Mankind as well as you can duplicate knowing, loving and hating Mankind and Mankind.
You can handle animals as well as you are willing to duplicate the animals. And let's not miss on this. Now, do you have to duplicate the animals? Do you have to duplicate the animals in order to talk to them? No. Because you see, basically there is no form; there is a postulated form. Although the form is quite real, yon know it's there and I know it's there and we know it's there, so we know it's there. That doesn't mean it's there. It says we know it's there.
Now, if you know that you can duplicate a horse, a horse will do anything you ask him to do. If you're utterly unwilling to duplicate a horse, a horse won't do a darn thing that you ask him to do. I don't care whether you use spurs, quirts, clubs, hot irons or anything else.
Now, the test of this is, where language was impossible we would pick up a flock of bodies, just bodies, and we would see if people, various people, could communicate easily with these bodies. And we would codify this to make some kind of a proof or test so that we would know, then, if communication lag and willingness to duplicate had anything to do with the ability to control or predict. And boy, it sure does. It sure does.
It is so bad that an individual who has a long communication lag—I don't know, maybe a twelve-minute, ten-minute communication lag on anything even vaguely connected with planning—if he had a communication lag like that, he would be unable to train, handle or manage or resist the onslaughts of dogs and children. So let's look this over.
Is he incapable of doing these things? Yeah. Incapable to such an extent that he's got the dogs and children neurotic that are around him. But yet he has to have them around him because, you know, he has to duplicate them and so forth and this is the thing to do and... Well, we've got a boy here who is in terrible shape but he's doing all of the right motions but just nothing right happens in relationship to his life. Why, he can't be things, that's all.
So we get down—beingness—is it a question of self-determinism? Yeah, yeah we've got that concept. That's very good. Is it a question of knowingness? Sure, sure. But how do you know things? You don't have to know data about things, you can just have a feeling of the certainty of their existence and behavior pattern and that is enough to know anything.
You can get the certainty of existence of the behavior pattern of a car. You can walk up to a car in a used car lot, for instance, and know whether the motor is going to run an hour or five days. Why? Because you could experience the beingness of the car.
We don't need to go off in a necromancy about this. It gets into very fantastic flights before you start fooling with it very long, but the answer to it is to enlarge one's beingness.
Now, by golly if a fellow can't handle a dog or a kid, what do you think he's doing with his own body? Now, just look that over, and if he can't make dogs immediately expand with joy and deflate with this and that, just by looking at them, practically, what do you think he's going to do with his own body? He's going to wreck it, that's what.
Your body manages on postulates. You can actually tell your body, "Well, you don't have to duplicate that sign over there." You're walking down the street, you think you're feeling all right, just tell your body, "You don't have to duplicate that sign over there." And all of a sudden you'll feel a lot better. Your body will feel better. It's going on all the old commands that it must duplicate everything.
Why, a thetan is terrifically selective. This thing, association, doesn't necessarily gunshot everything into every bank. He's terrifically selective, so much so that he can handle the body selectively. He could handle the body like this: "The body no longer has to duplicate wineglasses." Just like that. It won't duplicate wineglasses, then. All right. "The body doesn't have to duplicate this and that." Well, he can get to this: "The eyes do not have to duplicate lampposts." If he's really good, do you know he'll see no lamppost anywhere? You know, that is, the body's eyes won't. But he isn't walking in an hypnotic trance. He's totally independent of this. The body is an animal he's handling. He grants it beingness or he doesn't grant it beingness as the case may be.
Now, you talk about somatics—what's the matter? I mean, can't you tell your right arm, "Now, don't have any somatics," "Now have some." "All right. Now, be terrifically alive" and be your right arm. Be willing to be it or just tell it to be. And it immediately goes zing-zing and feels terrifically alive. This is handling MEST. This is control. The ability to be something. When you can do this, you can do anything.
And here is the road, as well, to faith healing. If you want to, this is the road to it. I don't know that you particularly care to do faith healing or not, but you could sure handle some other thetan's body to beat the band. You sure can. You can throw it in on your wavelength and he won't know whether he's walking down the street or up the escalator.
Well, that's beside the point. You could take some little kid who was walking across the street about to walk under a car and you just suddenly turn the kid around and have him walk back to the curb. What fuss, strain and effort does it require to do this? Well, the less strain and effort it is to do it, why, the faster it happens.
Now, your concentration on control as I said this morning, your concentration on control—that is, starting, stopping and changing things—is born out of an inability to predict accurately. A person who fails to predict has to control. Prediction is the knowingness of the future. Prediction in essence as far as competence is concerned—competence, prediction and so forth—would be handling of two or more particles, knowing whether or not two particles would or would not coincide, what their relationships would be one to the other at some future day. That's prediction.
Now, what's the test of that, by the way? You can, by the way, take a vehicle or walk down the street and predict that you're (this is a good exercise)—you predict that your feet are going to be at such and such positions, and you make your feet exactly hit those positions, and that your body is going to start and stop. You pick out a point way ahead of you, many feet ahead of you and say, "Well, the body is going to stop and then it's going to turn slightly to the right and then going to continue when it reaches that point."
You just do this for a little while and you will discover all of a sudden that your control of start, stop, change is shifting over into a knowingness of what the body is going to do. So that it eventually gets out of control entirely and if you were simply to know that the body was going down to the corner and when it reached the corner would look like it was sixteen years old—you just knew this—and your intention was to put it into effect, to put this knowingness into effect, your body would simply do just that. It's what you know is going to occur.
Now, the wrong way to go about it is to run around and tell somebody, "Say, you know if you don't have any doubts about this it'll really happen." That's religion. "Don't doubt and it'll all take place. Now, the reason that it didn't take place, the reason you didn't get any miracles and the reason you aren't Clear, Saint Simon—or Joseph or Paul or whoever it happened to be—is just because you didn't believe, that's why. You didn't have faith. Now, if you just had faith in something else other than yourself all this would transpire." Like hell it would. Nobody ever arrived anyplace by having faith exterior to his own capability. Yes, he did arrive someplace, he arrives in slavery.
What's your answer? What's the answer to any condition which you're facing or any problem which you're up against in auditing?
If you increase the person's ability and willingness to duplicate, you will increase, then, the person's ability to be. As you increase his ability to be you will increase his ability to duplicate. As you take him out of compulsive duplication, compulsive beingness into self-determined beingness, you graduate him right straight on up through into knowingness.
This is elementary. This is a terrifically elementary thing we're doing. It is elementary principally because it works in an elementary fashion. It doesn't lead to greater complexities. I'm not holding behind my back a bunch of rules which I just made up yesterday and which I will spring on you tomorrow. Many people are totally confident that this is what I do.
So, our problem in understanding what we're doing here, my problem has been to codify something I knew in such a way as to approximate its experiencing. And then by a process make it possible for another to experience it without materially injuring his own self-determinism.
It is odd that it doesn't experience under any other conditions than self-determinism. Knowingness doesn't experience under a secondary condition. That's a horrible thing.
But one of the most important parts of knowingness is a self-determined knowingness. So that you could get somebody to know, really, that he had been hit, by hitting him. You could give him the idea that he had a datum by hitting him. But there isn't anything you could put in him that would supplant his own knowingness unless you completely altered and enslaved his entire beingness. You could enslave his entire beingness and then tell him he had this feeling of knowingness, but he wouldn't have it.
Now, there's no reason to chase around and feel mysterious about it because you've experienced it the first moment that you experienced and found out there was something you could be. You might not have experienced it to its full calmest intensity, but you experienced it. You found out there was something you could be. You went around all the time and said, "Well, I'm being... I'm being a body, I'm my life is going along all right and I'm being these things and and I can be a pretty good actor and I'm a fairly good accountant and so on." And life is going along all right and then all of a sudden you found out that you were being a train or a horse. And boy, you really knew you were being that thing. There was a difference, wasn't there?
All right. If you were having any difficulty at all before that with your case, there sure was a difference. Otherwise your perception merely got better. You didn't have to get this difference. You already had some of this.
Well, this "Q syrup" or whatever you want to think of this as, is nothing mysterious, because you can experience it. Having experienced it, you know, then, more than before. So we have a communication system which has done the impossible things of denying and washing out all systems including itself. Quite interesting. We've gone around a long ways.
Now, there's enough phenomena in the track for an individual to run into to give a person a pretty good idea of what life is all about, if he's got to study it in terms of phenomena. Or he can just walk around and look. And it'll occur to somebody someday, instead of running down the facsimile track and looking at the facsimiles, to go back and take a look at some of the repetitive phenomena of the whole track because they exist today.
There is an Arsclycus—enough like it just to be real interesting—there's a total slavery system being ruled by several gods on some planets not too far from here. This is weird looking. There's a society full of dolls within about three light-years of this place, a society of dolls, just nothing but dolls, just thetans which are running dolls. There's all kinds of manifestations around. You don't have to rack around in the track. But until you have willingness to be those things in real life, you as an unprotected thetan without any bulwarks or bulkheads up and no body to breastplate for you, will find yourself rather unwilling to look at them.
So there's a gradient scale all the way up the line and you come on up just to higher and greater levels of knowingness. But the end of any process is to increase a person's beingness, increase his ability to duplicate, increase his communication levels, and then his affinities and his realities will fall right in line. And his imagination will increase proportionately.
Okay.
PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT 600 26 MARCH 1954
BEINGNESS PROCESSING AND THE PAGE 2 4ACC-44 - 15.03.54
BASIC FUNDAMENTALS OF EXISTENCE